Israel requires advertisers to disclose Photoshopping of models

Computer editing sees regulation, and models must be certifiably not underweight.

This March, Israel passed what are now known as the Photoshop laws. The legislation requires all models to maintain a certain BMI, and all designers to disclose when they've photoshopped their models. Today, The Atlantic posted a thorough look into the making of the laws, and whether governments can intervene in a creative process that doubles as the root of disease for many teenagers and adults alike.

The new laws require all models working in Israel to have a Body Mass Index (BMI) over 18.5. People with BMIs under 18.5 are generally considered underweight, and while being underweight doesn't constitute an eating disorder, politicians claim that most models aren't underweight and eating healthily.

Rachel Adato, a former gynecologist and current politician who pioneered the bill, reported that Israel sees 1,500 new cases of eating disorders every year.

Israel's Photoshop laws will also prohibit any undisclosed airbrushing, computer editing, or other kinds of photoshopping to make models appear thinner. Advertisers that choose to edit their models' photos must clearly state that fact to the viewer. International advertisements must comply with these regulations to have their ads placed in magazines or on billboard space sold within Israel.

While some decry the laws as a blow to free speech, many see them as a way of protecting vulnerable people from a very real and deadly disease. But psychologically, eating disorders aren't always simply about seeing an image and wanting to be that image (if that type of causation were always true, then video games would make more violent personalities). "Developing an eating disorder is a complex process in terms of specific constellation of personality traits that one's born with," Daniel La Grange, professor of psychiatry and director of the eating disorder program at the University of Chicago told The Atlantic. "Genetic, environmental, societal things have to come together in a vulnerable individual, so it's not just one piece that makes it possible."

Israel's laws likely aren't expected to have an effect on computer editing in America, where eating disorders are as much of a problem. Recently, a 14-year-old girl (and 26,000 signatories) petitionedSeventeen Magazine to run at least one spread per issue without digital photo manipulation. While Seventeen didn't make any promises, its campaign did make headlines in photography, fashion, and feminist circles.

I think the notice that a model is photoshoped isn't a bad thing, but using BMI as a standard is a horrible one. BMI has no relationship to body fat content or the health of the individual. Guys that work out, i.e. athletes, not just body builders, regularly read as obese on the BMI scale. Likewise women and men who are ectomorphs show up as having unhealthy low body weight.

Although I don't think BMI is a good measure and disagree with that specific bit, this disclosure part seems entirely reasonable. Fundamental to a functional free market is a high level of information symmetry and transparency. Failing to disclose artificial manipulations in an advertisement, from an informational perspective, isn't really any different from lying about what a product can do in some other way. Disclosure requirements are not burdensome and provide more information to the consumer, enabling better decision making.

What is the cut-off? Do you have to disclose that you cropped, leveled, curved, color balanced, sharpened and saved in photoshop? Or is it only the clone tool and softening filters?

If you're only allowed to publish jpgs straight from the camera this seems a little ridiculous. What if you dodging and burning during film development for a cover... would you have to disclose what you did in the darkroom?

It seems like this law is on the right track, I'm just curious about the specifics of what is allowed and what isn't.

Anyone else think that this is a little.... anti-human rights? I mean, some people are naturally thin as a rail and are not starving themselves to death.

Are you going to go and arrest them as the next step for being extremely thin?

Edit: Apparently, after seeing other people's postings, this only applies if you are Photoshopping, correct? And as long as you admit that some pictures might or are photoshopped, you won't run foul of this law?

Photoshop is like developing, IMO. Sure, a good photo straight from the camera should be able to stand on its own, but I think enhancements and artistic interpretation via Photoshop are perfectly legit. This backlash doesn't help. What, are you going to ban bounceboards and shooting during Magic Hour now? Or creative lighting?

Anyone else think that this is a little.... anti-human rights? I mean, some people are naturally thin as a rail and are not starving themselves to death.

divisionbyzero wrote:

Public health is becoming a code word for legislating morality.

pieguy3141 wrote:

Sure, a good photo straight from the camera should be able to stand on its own, but I think enhancements and artistic interpretation via Photoshop are perfectly legit.

Holy shit, we sure have a number today who, beyond merely being unable to RTFA, can't even comprehend the damned headline. "Israel requires advertisers to disclose Photoshopping of models" people. "Disclose" is not a synonym for "ban". This is a simple matter of advertising truthfulness, nothing more. It's like if someone was advertising a car and altered the image to change the dimensions and shape of the car to make it look better then it actually was. It's not that such things can't be done, but you need to tell people (or it needs to be so obvious that it passes the "reasonable person" test, and courts will and absolutely should lean very, very heavily towards strictness there).

If you hate Free Markets then I guess you'd be opposed to this of course, but it's hard to see an issue otherwise.

What is the cut-off? Do you have to disclose that you cropped, leveled, curved, color balanced, sharpened and saved in photoshop? Or is it only the clone tool and softening filters?

This. Every single picture that isn't uploaded off someone's phone (and many that are) go through modifications of some kind or another. Most advertising is a composite of many different images, regardless of what's done with images of humans. This kind of censorship and thinking is really poorly thought out and completely unenforceable, regardless of how well meaning it is.

Anyone else think that this is a little.... anti-human rights? I mean, some people are naturally thin as a rail and are not starving themselves to death.

divisionbyzero wrote:

Public health is becoming a code word for legislating morality.

pieguy3141 wrote:

Sure, a good photo straight from the camera should be able to stand on its own, but I think enhancements and artistic interpretation via Photoshop are perfectly legit.

Holy shit, we sure have a number today who, beyond merely being unable to RTFA, can't even comprehend the damned headline. "Israel requires advertisers to disclose Photoshopping of models" people. "Disclose" is not a synonym for "ban". This is a simple matter of advertising truthfulness, nothing more. It's like if someone was advertising a car and altered the image to change the dimensions and shape of the car to make it look better then it actually was. It's not that such things can't be done, but you need to tell people (or it needs to be so obvious that it passes the "reasonable person" test, and courts will and absolutely should lean very, very heavily towards strictness there).

If you hate Free Markets then I guess you'd be opposed to this of course, but it's hard to see an issue otherwise.

Holy shit, we have at least one person who only read the headline! Women with a BMI of less than 18.5 are forbidden from modeling. If you hate freedom of expression then I guess you'd be in favor of this of course, but it's hard not to see an issue otherwise.

This kind of censorship and thinking is really poorly thought out and completely unenforceable, regardless of how well meaning it is.

Even if the law said "anything" with no qualifications whatsoever, how exactly is a "this was modified in Photoshop" notice somewhere at the bottom "censorship"?

divisionbyzero wrote:

Holy shit, we have at least one person who only read the headline!

Nope.

Quote:

Women with a BMI of less than 18.5 are forbidden from modeling.

I already addressed this. There are two entirely separate things here: one is the BMI requirement for workers, the other is a notice requirement for modified photos. I disagree with the former as it is laid out, because as already stated BMI is a poor measurement, and I'm not convinced by the grounds they chose to argue on either. I can see that certain worker's rights grounds, with a much better and medically backed measurement system, might be justifiable, but that doesn't appear to be what the law suggests.

None of that has to do with disclosure requirements which is what I specifically pointed to and what the people I quoted were clearly referring to.

Quote:

If you hate freedom of expression then I guess you'd be in favor of this of course, but it's hard not to see an issue otherwise.

Yeah, I seem to recall in previous discussion that you thought that lying in ads is a "freedom of expression" issue, presumably along with libel/slander etc, but I (and current legal theory along with at least a significant portion of society) respectfully disagree.

This will simply become like the motion picture "modified from the original" thing. Publishers and advertisers will just put the notice on all photos, no matter what, and it will have no meaning and will be ignored.

Also: allergen notices on food. Unless a company is actually targeting the allergic market, they always have a notice that the food was "manufactured in a country where peanuts are grown" or some such BS, just to cover themselves from frivolous lawsuits.

Photoshop is like developing, IMO. Sure, a good photo straight from the camera should be able to stand on its own, but I think enhancements and artistic interpretation via Photoshop are perfectly legit. This backlash doesn't help. What, are you going to ban bounceboards and shooting during Magic Hour now? Or creative lighting?

Photoshop is not like developing when it's used to change someone from how they really look into some unattainable ideal. Which is what is currently happening.

Whatever happened to cuddly women? Women who have breasts? Women who are more than just bones?

This will simply become like the motion picture "modified from the original" thing. Publishers and advertisers will just put the notice on all photos, no matter what, and it will have no meaning and will be ignored.

Also: allergen notices on food. Unless a company is actually targeting the allergic market, they always have a notice that the food was "manufactured in a country where peanuts are grown" or some such BS, just to cover themselves from frivolous lawsuits.

Beat me to it. The law needs to at least force publishers to disclose if the image was skewed or stretched in Photoshop. These are the primary techniques for altering body proportions. Other photoshop tools mostly alter blemishes, skin tone, etc. Without mandating greater specificity the law will only result in all photos having the disclaimer, bringing no new information to the user.

I think the notice that a model is photoshoped isn't a bad thing, but using BMI as a standard is a horrible one. BMI has no relationship to body fat content or the health of the individual. Guys that work out, i.e. athletes, not just body builders, regularly read as obese on the BMI scale. Likewise women and men who are ectomorphs show up as having unhealthy low body weight.

While it's true that BMI really only works across whole populations all fashion models seem to share the same body type(scientifically known as "thin as shit and rather disgusting"), so using BMI across all models probably works quite well.Normally I wouldn't approve of a law like this, but fuck the fashion industry, we could all do perfectly fine without it.

Isn't global obesity the problem? 2/3rds of Americans are obese. 1/2 of Canadians. A hundred other nations are probably up there. How many people are anorexic worldwide... maybe a milllion? Compared to billions of obese people?

In my opinion a few too-thin models are the least of the worlds problems.

I take offense with the line:" a creative process that doubles as the root of disease for many teenagers and adults alike"

Eating disorders are a serious psychological disorder. They are not caused nor cured by pictures on a billboard or a magazine. Legislating the modelling industry isn't going to change how society feels about beauty ideals. If anything, legislating it is probably going to make the problem worse. People think that which is hard to achieve is beautiful. It used to be fat women when food was scarce and now it's the opposite.

I think this law is going the wrong way of solving eating disorders. Israel should, instead, focus on mental health treatment and prevention.

if that type of causation were always true, then video games would make more violent personalities

Video games seldom (if ever) actively try to sell an ideal image for their audience to try to attain, there is a huge difference in the goal of the media Megan Geuss is avoiding to portrait.

One says "have fun at the computer/console doing this life-like representation violence" the other says "this is how society wants you to look and you are failing if you are not trying to reach this ideal".

Even if the law said "anything" with no qualifications whatsoever, how exactly is a "this was modified in Photoshop" notice somewhere at the bottom "censorship"?

You are prohibited from using images without that notice. It's pointless too, since every advertisement will have to have that notice. Every. Single. One.

You are prohibited from using images advertising cigarettes without plastering a warning on them that they cause cancer. As a society, we've decided that we're okay with forcing artists to modify their work to comply with laws created "for your own good".

See also: fast food menu things that now have calorie counts, the back of beer and liquor bottles loaded with warnings about drinking while pregnant, the label on the visor of my car that tells my wearing a seat belt is a good idea...

We've long ago given up the right to be offended at these kinds of things, and there's no getting our dignity as a society back.

Isn't global obesity the problem? 2/3rds of Americans are obese. 1/2 of Canadians. A hundred other nations are probably up there. How many people are anorexic worldwide... maybe a milllion? Compared to billions of obese people?

In my opinion a few too-thin models are the least of the worlds problems.

This is discrimination, plain and simple. There are a lot of people who are genuinely thin (e.g. I am a male, and my BMI is less than 17), but it seems some think that all of the thin people are anorexic. 2/3 of US population are fatasses (overweight, obese and extremely obese), but less than 2% are underweight. Number of fatasses increases, but number of underweight people decreases. It's well known that obesity is more dangerous for health than underweight. So what is the conlusion? Of course, blame thin people in everything.

Actually like it. But not for the reasons it has been done. I think its an overblown nannystate kind of thing to do and by now even 14 year olds should know that these pictures are photoshopped. If not then their parents might want to explain it to their daughters. IMO its a similar hysteria to the bullying stuff like now. I am not complaining that every guy in the magazines has a marbled sixpack, something that is hard to achieve and almost impossible to sustain for a guy as well.

But I somehow find pictures more attractive when I know they are actually real. If I wanted to watch unnatural proportions they should use anime models. I strongly suspect that it will not save many teenagers from their angst. Even unphotoshopped a Model that has a personal trainer and eating regime will still look so much better than the average teenager.

Oh and regarding what beautiful is there may be different opinions. But I think most people will agree that its neither the 40kg models whose bones are showing, but equally not the chubby persons who call themselves "real women".

I have no problem with someone having a bit extra weight, we are all weak and have had a bit too much and you still can be attractive, but no 70kg is not normal or a beauty ideal on a woman. There may be models who are too thin but most Victoria Secret headliners actually look pretty amazing. Doesn't mean that everybody needs to have the ideal.

(And yes beauty ideals can change but we do not live in the renaissance anymore and most of the time in history the depicted beauties were pretty close to the ideal of today.

All in all I would say the beauty ideal of women has been thin and slightly sporty (have you seen the abs of aprhodite) throughout the biggest time of history. But todays models often definitely fall on the unhealthy thin side. Still no reason to outlaw these things